universalindult

First of all, the proper term should be "extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion."

In 1997 the Vatican demanded the abuse of having extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion at all masses be eliminated entirely:

Quote:

§ 2. Extraordinary ministers may distribute Holy Communion at eucharistic celebrations only when there are no ordained ministers present or when those ordained ministers present at a liturgical celebration are truly unable to distribute Holy Communion.(99) They may also exercise this function at eucharistic celebrations where there are particularly large numbers of the faithful and which would be excessively prolonged because of an insufficient number of ordained ministers to distribute Holy Communion. (100)

This function is supplementary and extraordinary (101) and must be exercised in accordance with the norm of law. It is thus useful for the diocesan bishop to issue particular norms concerning extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion which, in complete harmony with the universal law of the Church, should regulate the exercise of this function in his diocese. Such norms should provide, amongst other things, for matters such as the instruction in eucharistic doctrine of those chosen to be extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion, the meaning of the service they provide, the rubrics to be observed, the reverence to be shown for such an august Sacrament and instruction concerning the discipline on admission to Holy Communion.

To avoid creating confusion, certain practices are to be avoided and eliminated where such have emerged in particular Churches:

— extraordinary ministers receiving Holy Communion apart from the other faithful as though concelebrants;

— association with the renewal of promises made by priests at the Chrism Mass on Holy Thursday, as well as other categories of faithful who renew religious vows or receive a mandate as extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion;

— the habitual use of extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion at Mass thus arbitrarily extending the concept of "a great number of the faithful". --

They may also exercise this function at eucharistic celebrations where there are particularly large numbers of the faithful and which would be excessively prolonged because of an insufficient number of ordained ministers to distribute Holy Communion. (100)

certain practices are to be avoided and eliminated where such have emerged in particular Churches:

— the habitual use of extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion at Mass thus arbitrarily extending the concept of "a great number of the faithful".

And a slight rearranging of the exact excerpts, for clarity:

Quote:

the habitual use of extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion at Mass thus arbitrarily extending the concept of "a great number of the faithful" [is] to be avoided andeliminated where such have emerged

[156.] This function is to be understood strictly according to the name by which it is known, that is to say, that of extraordinary minister of Holy Communion, and not “special minister of Holy Communion” nor “extraordinary minister of the Eucharist” nor “special minister of the Eucharist”, by which names the meaning of this function is unnecessarily and improperly broadened.

I don't know how this has been ignored this long.

It is, for all intents and purposes, a complete ban on extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion as we know it.

universalindult

This is the problem Dr. Kopp. These words mean nothing if they cannot be enforced. And this is precisely why so many "traditionalists" have lost all or nearly all trust in Rome.

I can't argue with that, obscurus.

I also see it as evidence that there is no hope whatsoever in the "reform of the reform" movement.

Theoretically, the NO could be reformed such that it is reverent and sacred and fulfills the duty of the liturgy in its role of catechesis on the faith and the sacrifical nature of the mass and the role of the priesthood.

The fact that it could be reformed, theoretically, has nothing whatsoever to do with whether new rules from Rome would reform this mass. In 1997, the Vatican demanded the use of Extraordinary Eucharistic Ministers at every mass be eliminated. The response to that demand so far is typical of what we could expect of further attempts at "reform of the reform." In other words, completely ignoring of the reform efforts by the local ordinaries and priests, with no attempts by Rome to discipline such rank disobedience whatsoever.

So the whole "reform of the reform" movement is a pipe dream. It just ain't gonna happen. In the case noted above, 9 years have passed since the Vatican banned EEMs at every mass. This year, instead of enforcing said ban, they made the "bold" move of revoking the "indult" that permitted the EEMs to purify the sacred vessels. So after a decade, one effort at reforming one abuse among dozens (hundreds?) still has not borne fruit.

So by extrapolation, it would take several generations to reform the reform back to some form that might be acceptable to traditional Catholics.

Bring back the Tridentine, and let the NO die the slow ignoble death it deserves.

The Tridentine will replace the NO by attrition of the modernists and liberals much quicker than the "reform of the reform" will correct the chaos that is the Novus Ordo..

Logged

Mariafrombrazil

Does anyone know how to find that document either in Italian or Portuguese? A certain priest I know will not believe it unless the translations comes from someone else other than myself. Maybe a news agency or the Vatican site ... Thank you!

They may also exercise this function at eucharistic celebrations where there are particularly large numbers of the faithful and which would be excessively prolonged because of an insufficient number of ordained ministers to distribute Holy Communion. (100)

Well, there's the "out" right there. It leaves the determination of what constitutes a "particularly large" number and what "excessively prolonged" means timewise up to the individual priest.

I personally don't think the NO is beyond reform. But until the Vatican starts spelling things out in black and white, priests/bishops will continue to exercise their own "best judgement".

Yes, but the "out" is used in such ways as to offend the sensiblities of any sane, normally intelligent individual. I have attended daily NO Masses with five or six communicants and there is at least one EEM administering Holy Communion. I have also attended Masses where a Religious sat in the pews whilst a laywoman "ministered" as an EEM, a further violation of the norms.

May I ask what some of this means?With regard to when EMs are used: if there is only one priest, and a reasonable number of communicants, does an EM need to be used?

I have read that at times when numbers of communicants decline, EMs are unwilling to "give up" their "position." I used to vacation at a place where, truly, the number of communicants would require help (hundreds, not tens), but on the off-season, there were still a lot of EMs. Should they have had them only when there were a lot of people, and if not enough people showed up (storm or the like), the priest could have told them they wouldn't be needed?

It occurred to me one day that it is a lot faster to distribute the Eucharist at a communion rail than it is in a line—remember that "study" someone did of the particles of the Host? Is there any study about the relative speeds of the two ways of distributing? (And how did we start receiving in a line, anyhow?)

Does this mean that the EMs are not supposed to go up behind the altar to receive? (!!!!)

Thanks very much!

And a happy new year to you all, too

Logged

Other ages... are prone to faction, and it is our business to inflame them. Any small coterie, bound together by some interest which other men dislike or ignore, tends to develop inside itself a hothouse mutual admiration, and towards the outer world, a great deal of pride and hatred which is entertained without shame because the 'Cause' is its sponsor... Even when the little group exists originally for the Enemy's own purposes, this remains true.... The Church [H]erself is, of course, heavily defended... but subordinate factions within [H]er have often produced admirable results, from the parties of Paul and Apollos at Corinth down...." —The Screwtape Letters; number 7. C.S. Lewis

universalindult

They may also exercise this function at eucharistic celebrations where there are particularly large numbers of the faithful and which would be excessively prolonged because of an insufficient number of ordained ministers to distribute Holy Communion. (100)

Well, there's the "out" right there. It leaves the determination of what constitutes a "particularly large" number and what "excessively prolonged" means timewise up to the individual priest.

The document itself closes that loophole:

a slight rearranging of the exact excerpts, for clarity:

Quote:

the habitual use of extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion at Mass thus arbitrarily extending the concept of "a great number of the faithful" [is] to be avoided andeliminated where such have emerged

Logged

universalindult

Does anyone know how to find that document either in Italian or Portuguese? A certain priest I know will not believe it unless the translations comes from someone else other than myself. Maybe a news agency or the Vatican site ... Thank you!

The links provided in the original post go directly to the Vatican website: